Luke 18

CHAPTER XVIII

Luke 18:1

1 Moreover, he went on to say a parable to them for this that it is necessary that they be always praying and not losing heart, saying: A judge there was in a city, fearing not God and regarding not man. Moreover, a widow there was in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, Vindicate me of my opponent at law! And he would not for a time. But afterward he said in himself, Though I neither fear God nor regard man, because this widow is making me trouble, I will vindicate her lest finally by coming she be knocking me out.

Jesus continues speaking to the disciples (17:22) and on the same general topic as v. 6, 7 indicate. But the new thought is that, until the end comes, the disciples must always keep praying and never lose heart (to be κακός, inferior, good-for-nothing in this matter). Πρὸςτό with the infinitive means “with reference to,” R. 1075. The impersonal δεῖν is used to indicate all types of necessity, here that which arises from the situation of the disciples in a wicked world that is ripening for judgment as a dead body begins to rot and get ready to be devoured by the eagles (17:37).

Luke 18:2

2 Note the correspondence: “A judge there was in a city,” and: “Moreover, a widow there was in that city,” the subjects being placed forward for the sake of emphasis, and the indefinite pronoun being used twice, as is often done in Luke, for our indefinite article “a,” R. 743. The point of the parable is missed when the wickedness of this judge is reduced in any way, for the force of the parable lies in the contrast between this judge and the just and righteous God; wherefore also this wickedness of the judge is again emphasized in v. 4. He feared not God in the conduct of his high office nor all the dire threats of God against unjust and conscienceless judges. Nor did he have “its poor and miserable substitute” (Trench), regard for man, for the opinion of the world which holds many a man and an otherwise conscienceless judge in line.

Here we have another (16:1) parable in which we cannot proceed as we did in that of the sower and find counterparts for all that the parable mentions. This judge is not God. These two are opposites, and this is the thought that makes the parable. The illustrative feature is only one and not a number of them that run through the picture, and that one point, the tertium comparationis, Jesus himself states in v. 6–8a; we have no right to go beyond that. We found Jesus doing the same thing in 16:9, etc.

Luke 18:3

3 A widow comes to this judge’s court, and we may well suppose that she was a poor widow, without power and influence. She has an “opponent at law” (the same word that is used in Matt. 5:25) who has robbed her of the little she had. So she appeals to this judge, keeps coming again and again although he keeps putting her off; and her petition is: “Vindicate me of my opponent at law!” The verb ἐκδικέω means “to avenge or vindicate,” here by making the opponent at law return his extortion and robbery and by inflicting on him the penalty he deserves.

Luke 18:4

4 But this conscienceless judge “would not for a time.” The law of God and of man was on the widow’s side, and that fact the judge saw; yet because she was only a lone widow, this judge would not act. But she had one weapon that made even this judge succumb. In the parable he is made to acknowledge it himself. Parables are built like that—the wicked are made to state their wicked thoughts outright in so many words. After some time (μετὰταῦτα), the widow persisting in coming and demanding action, this judge, yes, even one who is as base as this, who admits to himself, “Although (εἰκαί) I fear not God and regard not man,” capitulates.

Luke 18:5

5 Διὰτό to with the infinitive states the reason the judge finally resolves to act, and it is certainly about as low a motive as can move any judge to act; and ἵναμή states his purpose and aim, and it, too, is of the lowest. Not the widow’s unquestioned right and her opponent’s flagrant wrong against her move this judge, move him at last, but his own personal ease and peace which this widow’s constant coming and pleading destroy.

Παρέχεινκόπον is idiomatic, “to furnish or make trouble”; and δπωπιάζω, literally, “to hit under the eye,” “to give a black eye,” is strong even when it is used metaphorically: “lest finally by coming she be knocking me out.” It would require an aorist subjunctive to mean that the widow would finally fly into a rage and literally knock the judge under the eye with her fist—although he richly deserved it; the present subjunctive means that the woman’s everlasting coming will, if it continues much longer, knock the judge out by finally moving him to give in. He sees that he cannot hold out forever, and so in order to have no more bother and to avoid yielding in the end he resolves then and there: “I will vindicate her.” The moment we see that God acts in the very opposite way, the disgraceful conduct of this judge will appear in its proper light. We should also remember that Jesus paints an Oriental judge, to whom the aggrieved go without the legal red tape and the lawyers who are required in our modern courts.

Luke 18:6

6 Now the interpretation. And the Lord said: Hear what the judge of unrighteousness says! But God, will he not work the vindication of his elect, crying to him by day and by night? and is he waiting long over them? I will tell you, that he will work their vindication with speed! Nevertheless, the Son of man, on coming, will he find the faith on the earth?

The whole parable centers in what the judge “says,” vivid present tense; all else is subsidiary. He is called “the judge of unrighteousness,” which characterizes him by a qualitative genitive (which is stronger than an adjective), it is like “the steward of unrighteousness” and “the mammon of unrighteousness” occurring in 16:8, 9.

Luke 18:7

7 Fixing attention on that, Jesus brings out what we are to see. By placing ὁδὲΘεός before the double interrogative words οὐμή (which involve an affirmative answer) “but God” receives strong emphasis, δέ placing him into contrast with “the judge of unrighteousness.” Because this contrast culminates in the judge of unrighteousness and the God of all righteousness, it runs through the entire parable. Thus, over against the widow, in whom the judge has no interest, there are set the elect, in whom God has supreme interest. She comes to the judge from time to time; over against that there is set the crying both by day and by night (the genitives to indicate time within which something occurs; the accusatives would mean all day and all night long). The widow is not heard for a time; over against that short period there is set the long period that God waits before he acts. Over against the utterly base and selfish yielding of the judge there is set the holy, righteous, loving deed of God which he resolved to do from the start. So the contrast runs clear through.

Nothing in the parable represents the reality save the vindication—there is vindication alike in the parable and in reality; all else is opposite, and the whole force and argument lie in this cumulative opposition. Even the widow is understood wrongly if, amid these opposites, she is made like the elect, they being poor and helpless as she is. The elect are supremely precious to God, the widow, just because she is a widow, poor and helpless as such, is just nothing to the judge even when he at last vindicates her. On the elect compare John 10:14, 16; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 Pet. 1:2: “elect according to the foreknowledge of God.” Their cries for vindication ring through the Scriptures, Ps. 35:17; 74:10; 94:3; Rev. 6:10.

The addition to the question: καὶμακροθυμεῖἐπʼ αὐτοῖς, has called forth a number of interpretations. It has been termed awkward; the reading, though it is fully assured, has been changed; the verb has been regarded as an Attic future instead of the present tense; the words are separated from the question and are read as a declaration; the pronoun does not refer to the elect but to their opponents at law. One cause of this confusion is the idea that the parable calls for the wrong contrast, namely that, whereas the unjust judge delayed the widow’s vindication for a time, the just God does not delay the vindication of the elect at all whereas the fact is that God delays the full vindication to the end of the world. The correct opposition is: a short time—a long time. Hence this long, long crying by day and by night.

Another mistaken view is that everything is close to the end of the world. Or, which is the same, the end of the world as the day of vindication is placed close to the time when Jesus was speaking. According to either view the period is made as short as possible with the idea that the parable requires this. On this idea of shortness rests also the view that the verb means “to be longsuffering” (R. V., for instance), i. e., that God waits patiently for the training and the development of the elect under the world’s hatred until, when this is finished, he steps in with his vindication. But what about all these elects’ dying, generation after generation of them? According to this view the parable and the interpretation would apply only to the generation that witnesses the end; and will all those then living, young and old, be alike fully developed by suffering?

We have neither the adversative καί (R., W. P.), “and yet,” nor an aorist subjunctive (ποήσῃ) plus a present indicative (μακροθυμεῖ) after οὐμή (R. 1158). We have a simple second question that is added by an ordinary καί, one that has nothing to do with οὐμή. It is a question because καί prevents us from regarding it as a declaration. The A. V. had a correct intuition, the R. V. went off on a wrong track. “But God, will he not vindicate,” etc.? Absolutely, he will! “And is he waiting long,” etc.? It does seem so—for the promised end is not yet. In answer to both of these rhetorical questions Jesus says with great authority: “I tell you,” etc. On the meaning of the verb as used here: “to wait long,” “to delay long,” see C.-K. 503; and “over them” means “over vindicating them.”

Luke 18:8

8 Jesus declares with all his authority that God’s vindication of his elect will come ἐντάχει, “with speed,” the stress being on this phrase. Because of this assurance of speed the second question about God’s delaying was added—had to be added. This is the very problem that is faced by the elect of all ages: God seems to delay and delay their final vindication whereas they are told that the vindication is coming with speed. Jesus answers that problem by once more asserting the fact of the speed. So Peter, too, understood him when he reasserted in 2 Pet. 3:8, 9 that God is not slack as some men count slackness; he delays in long-suffering in order to save as many people as possible; and with him a thousand years are as one day. Peter’s commentary satisfies fully.

The assertion that it cannot be determined whether the sentence that is introduced by πλήν is declarative or interrogative is not well supported. Greek accents were added at a later date by fallible editors and are subject to review to this day; hence it is for us to decide whether the reading should be ἄρα, the particle expressing correspondence like our “then,” or ἆρα, the interrogative particle, which is left untranslated in English and in German and admits either an affirmative or a negative answer in the speaker’s mind. The fact is that the inferential ἄρα does not fit here. From the great fact that God will vindicate his elect with speed the inference does not follow that, when the Son of man (see 5:24) comes, he is sure to find the faith on the earth. The point is not that he will then find some believers, some of the elect, still among the living; for it is self-evident that God would not let the world continue without there being believers among men. The point is in regard to “the faith” and not faith in general, that faith which is pictured in the parable, that is so necessary for all the elect, which Jesus is working to produce and to increase, “the” faith that ceases not to cry by day and by night.

The question (ἆρα) is will that faith be there to greet the Son of man at his coming? Some think that the answer must be no, that no was in Jesus’ mind, in fact, that all faith is negatived as far as the end is concerned. This view misunderstands the object of the question, which is not to raise speculation about what will occur at the end but is to stimulate us all to keep on crying as the elect until the Son of man appears. “Will there be this faith to welcome me when I come?” Jesus leaves the answer to us and to all the elect that follow us.

Luke 18:9

9 Moreover, also to some who had been resting their trust on themselves that they were righteous and were treating the rest with contempt he spoke this parable.

Neither the preceding parable nor the one that is now introduced deal with prayer as such; prayer is only the vehicle in both. So the connection is not from prayer to prayer. The first parable deals with the kind of faith Jesus wants the disciples to have, one that is constantly longing and asking for his return; the second parable adds the true humility of faith, of that faith which alone justifies. It may well be possible that this parable followed the other promptly. Since εἶπεπρός is constantly used to mean “he said to” the persons who are then named, we cannot have it here mean “he said regarding” absent persons.

Those who are addressed are characterized by a perfect and a present participle: such as “have been trusting in themselves” and continue to do this and such as now “go on condemning the rest.” The substance of the trust is “that they are righteous,” the present tense matches the perfect participle, δίκαιοι (as always) is used in the forensic sense. These men were convinced that they had God’s verdict in their favor; but the only ground on which they were resting this conviction was “themselves” (ἐφ expresses the basis). The result of this self-righteousness was that they were considering others as nothing; in their estimation they alone amounted to something—and that just about everything—before God. Who were they? Not Pharisees although the description fits them. Luke would most likely have inserted this word. That leaves other Jews who have the Pharisaic spirit or followers of Jesus who are still infected with that spirit.

Luke 18:10

10 Two men went up into the Temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

This occurred at one of the regular hours for prayer, and τὸἱερόν is the entire Temple complex. Into the court of the men these two came for their act of prayer-worship (aorist). The Pharisees are described in 5:17; the publicans in 3:12. These two constituted the extremes in Judaism, the one stood at the pinnacle of holiness, the other was a wicked outcast. The scene is laid in the Holy City itself, in the very court of the Temple, and thus in the presence of God. Jesus is showing the men he is addressing a photograph of what they really are and a companion photograph of what they ought to be. It is a Pharisee but may just as well be anybody else who thinks like this Pharisee speaks and acts; it is a publican but this one represents, not publicans as a class, but all men who think as he speaks and acts.

Luke 18:11

11 This is a parable—we are allowed to enter with these men and to see and to hear all that reveals them as they are. The Pharisee took a stand and went on praying these things for himself: God, I thank thee that I am not like the rest of men, robbers, unrighteous, adulterers, or ever as this publican! I fast twice during the week; I tithe all whatever I acquire.

The picture is not overdrawn in the least. The Jews had fixed prayers just as we teach our children to pray: “Now I lay me down to sleep,” etc. But free prayers were also spoken. The point is that the parable lets this Pharisee pray the real thought of his heart. In this prayer we see what a case of full-grown self-and work-righteousness looks like. The type is Jewish, but while it is thus individualized it can easily be translated into other types.

We are shown only the heart of the prayer; “he went on praying” (imperfect) means that he said much more, for the Pharisees loved to make long prayers. This man may have spoken many other words in his prayer, words from the psalms, words from the prophets, the most godly words in the world—many hypocrites and self-righteous men love to use them; but his heart is truly revealed only in words such as these which the parable puts into his mouth.

“He took a stand” right up in front, next to the stone balustrade which divided the priests’ court from that of the men. Πρὸςἑαυτόν does not mean “to himself” in the sense of “silently,” “under his breath,” as some think, who add even that he would not have dared to say these things out loud. He not only dared this but was admired by those who heard what he could say. The phrase is to be construed with the verb (not with the participle) and means that he prayed these things “for himself,” “in favor of himself,” using πρός of direction which may be either hostile (“against”) or friendly or neutral; it is here the second. He boasted about himself—that was his praying. He thought that was in his favor with God.

It is held against him that he said only ὁΘεός—the nominative with the article is used as a vocative—but everything is trimmed down in a parable, and so “God” is enough. “I thank thee” makes this prayer a thanksgiving, but only in form—it names not one thing that God has done for this man. For when he adds: “that I am not like the rest of men” and names three vicious kinds and then the publican on whom his eyes fell, his meaning is not that God’s grace has made him different, but that he has made himself righteous, yea, vastly better. And he, indeed, could not thank God for what he had become, for God’s grace never made him what he was, never turned out self-righteous boasters.

He thanked God that he was not like “robbers,” etc., but he really had nothing to thank even himself for on that score, for the Pharisee that he had made of himself was worse in God’s eyes than a robber and most certainly much harder to save as witness the publican. This man was merely what Jesus charges in 16:15. He was measuring with a wrong human rule and not with the rule of God’s Word, and doing this right in God’s Temple which had been dedicated to God’s Word. By the ἄδικοι he refers to all such as have no righteousness in men’s eyes, who cannot face an earthly judge. With καί he does not include “also” this (derogatory οὖτος, R. 697) publican but tops the pile with him as being the worst of all—glance at 3:12.

Luke 18:12

12 First, self-absolution from all sins—not one to confess to God; then, merit, even supererogation, doing even more than God had commanded. “God, see in me no sin, all pure merit!” This man keeps fasting twice a week (genitive of time within). In the Greek, both in the singular and in the plural, “Sabbath” is used for our “week” and means the group of days that is bounded by the Sabbaths. God’s law prescribed only one day of fasting in the year, the Day of Atonement, Lev. 16:29, etc.; 23:27, etc. The nation itself had established four other fast days. But private fasting had been introduced since the exile, and the Pharisees practiced this as a special mark of holiness and used Monday and Thursday for this purpose. The Jews of the present time have 28 fast days. So this Pharisee claimed high merit for his fasting but knew nothing of such fasting as Isa. 58:4–7 describes.

He also tithed every last thing he acquired (κτῶμαι, not “possess”). The emphasis is on the πάνταὅσα, “everything whatsoever”; he did not make the common exemptions but included even that which Jesus mentions in 11:42—more works of supererogation. On tithing for Christians compare the notes on 11:42. Jesus puts just enough into the parable to bring out its point. So he stops with a mention of these works—the Pharisees boasted of more.

Luke 18:13

13 But the publican, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to the heaven but was striking his breast, saying, God, let thyself be propitiated in regard to me, the open sinner!

He is the complete opposite to the Pharisee. He, too, stands as was customary in the Temple, but he has not taken a special stand. The Greek says “from afar” and measures from the object to the person; we say “far off” and measure in the opposite way. He stood as far off from the Sanctuary as he could, at the rear of the court of the men. He felt that he was too unworthy to go nearer. Nor did he have the will to lift up his eyes to heaven in the face of the Sanctuary, the imperfect ἤθελεν includes the entire time that he was in the court.

He was utterly ashamed before God. Over against what he did not do ἀλλά states what he did do, strike his breast in the Oriental way of showing great sorrow like the wailing women do in 8:52, the weeping women on the Via Dolorosa in 23:27, and the children at play in Matt. 11:17. This act symbolizes the publican’s contrition. We add his confession of sin when he calls himself ὁἁμαρτωλός, “the open and notorious sinner,” right here in God’s house. True contrition is always expressed by honest confession. R., W.

P. scores a point in pointing out that the article is so often overlooked. The main point lies in the article. The Pharisee thought of others as being sinners; the publican thinks of himself alone as being the sinner and not of others. This is a mark of true contrition. It finds no comfort at all in the fact that there are many other and even greater sinners; it sees only itself before God, only itself as “the” sinner who is unable to answer to God for his sins.

The publican, too, cries only ὁΘεός as is explained in v. 11. If blame attached to the Pharisee for saying only “God” it would extend also to the publican. But how dare a gross sinner approach God, and that right in God’s Temple? Because there is forgiveness with God, his Temple is open to sinners, he has provided expiation for their sins, and this is applied to sinners in his Temple, and his Word declares all this and seals the forgiveness. This publican was a Jew who knew all this and was now acting upon it. It was this gospel provision of the old covenant that drew him in the first place.

The Pharisee disregarded all gospel, made the whole Old Testament law, and thus prayed as he did. The publican knew the true law that condemns sin, came smitten and crushed by that law, but, thank God, knew also the gospel in the Old Testament, the gospel in all the sacrifices for sin in the Temple, and made his prayer thus.

The translation “be merciful to me” which is found in our version and in others is unfortunate. The verb used is not ἐλεεῖν, “to be merciful or to show mercy,” which is properly translated thus in all the instances where the sick cry for help (e. g., 17:13). This translation leaves out the very essential that Jesus put into the publican’s mouth, without which God cannot pardon and justify, namely the expiation for sin. So this translation is either misapplied as though God justifies without expiation, or the explanation is given that because of the limitations of parables the expiation is omitted. But this verb is the very one which shows the expiation and is used here for that very purpose: ἱλάσθητίμοι, “be propitiated in regard to me”; or, taking the passive in the middle sense: “let thyself be propitiated in regard to me.”

In ἱλάσκομαι there lies ἱλασμός, “propitiation,” which, where sin is involved, is an expiation or atonement. C.-K. 517–521 on the verb and the noun. The publican prays that God may let the sacrifices which he ordained for sin in the old covenant blot out his sin so that God can again extend his grace and favor to this poor sinner. Such a prayer can be made only to a gracious God, to him who has provided an expiation, and only by one who makes that expiation his sole refuge in contrition, makes it by putting all his faith and trust in this divine expiation. That is the sense of the publican’s prayer. All that we need to remember is that it rests on the Old Testament sacrifices for sin, which typify the final sacrifice of Christ on the cross and have their efficacy for the old covenant in and through the promised sacrifice of Christ, Isa. 53:2–7.

Luke 18:14

14 I tell you, this one went down to his house as having been justified rather than that one; because everyone exalting himself shall be humbled, but he humbling himself shall be exalted.

It is the voice of authority which announces the verdict: “I tell you!” “Went down” to his house is proper because the Jews always regarded the going to the Temple as a going up. The Temple was not built on the highest hill of the city, yet all went up, and all came down. The perfect participle δεδικαιωμένος is predicative to οὖτος: “this one as having been justified”; and the tense states that God justified him prior to his going down to his house or home, and that this justification was valid now and indefinitely. The agent involved in the passive is “God” to whom he prayed.

But the sense of this participle is of the utmost importance. Δικαιοῦν is always forensic, in the LXX, etc., also in a secular sense, in the New Testament in a religious sense and only with a personal object. God acquits, as the Judge he delivers and pronounces the verdict that frees from guilt and punishment. Look at the exhaustive finding in C.-K. 317, etc.; also at the cognate terms; also at the synonymous expressions and at the antonyms. The word never means to make righteous or just but always forensically to declare so. Since justification by faith is the central doctrine of the Scriptures, the sinner’s one hope of salvation, the word in which this doctrine centers must be properly understood.

The reading should be παρʼ ἐκεῖνον in preference to ἢἐκεῖνος, and certainly not ἢγὰρἐκεῖνος as a question. The sense is that the publican alone was justified by God, the Pharisee was not, namely in comparing the two with each other. The view that the one was justified more than the other is in itself impossible since no degrees are possible in justification—the judge pronounces the acquittal or refuses to pronounce it and leaves the sinner in his sin, guilt, and condemnation. Nor should we confuse the matter by bringing in the sinner’s conviction or feeling of having been justified by God. The divine act takes place in heaven, outside of, apart from, and only in regard to the sinner who is on earth. His knowledge, conviction, and feeling (all of which are subjective) are derived from the Word, in which the acquittal of every repentant sinner is recorded.

The reason the publican was acquitted and the Pharisee was not is stated in the form of an axiom or self-evident proposition, one that is used repeatedly by Jesus in 14:11; Matt. 23:12, and in other forms elsewhere. He that exalts himself shall be humbled, every last one; but he that humbles himself shall be exalted—both passives have God as the agent. The Pharisee put himself up high in a totally false way and contrary to God. God had to puncture his arrogance; he could not let the lie endure, especially also since God had provided a true righteousness for sinners, and this man spurned it, manufactured a sham righteousness of his own instead, and tried to pass that off on God. The facts had to be brought to the light, and then the exaltation turned into the very opposite. But the publican humbled himself by letting God’s law fill him with contrition for his sins and lead him to confess his sin to God.

He turned only to God in faith and to the expiation God provided for him. God could not but lift him up on high by justifying him and accepting him as his own. How can God pour anything into a full vessel? But the one that his law empties, that his grace can and does fill.

Luke 18:15

15 Moreover, they kept bringing to him even the babes in order that he might touch them. But having seen it, the disciples went on to rebuke them.

The connection is chronological, this incident occurred in Perea as also Matt. 19:1 and Mark 10:1 state. In the latter two evangelists this incident with regard to babes is placed after the words regarding the permanency of marriage, an obvious connection of thought. Luke places it after the justification of the publican, a less obvious connection. Yet that parable as well as the account about the rich young ruler deals with entrance into the kingdom, the very thing that is vindicated also in the case of babes.

This scene is often placed out-of-doors, but Mark 10:10 seems to place it in a house, which also explains how the disciples could rebuke those who were bringing the children. They did this outside, and thus Jesus did not at first see it. The two imperfects “they kept bringing” and “they went on to rebuke” are, of course, descriptive, but these tenses lead us to expect something like an aorist to tell us the outcome. It seems as though these persons started bringing their babes of their own accord. Somebody conceived the idea, and others followed in a little procession. Matt. 19:13 and Mark 10:13 have παιδία, “little children,” Luke more exactly τὰβρέφη, “babies” or “sucklings,” the word used in 1 Pet. 2:2, even for an unborn babe in Luke 1:44; he adds καί: “even the sucklings.” Being so tiny, it was, of course, impossible for them to understand what was being done for them.

The scene is marred when we are told that superstition prompted these parents and others to bring their babes because they attributed some sort of magical power to the touch of Jesus’ hands. If that had been their motive, Jesus would have severely rebuked them and sent them away. Verbs of touching are construed with the genitive, and the present subjunctive indicates that he touched them one by one. Matt. 19:13 describes this touching as being the laying on of hands, a symbolical act that denoted blessing, and combines it with praying, invoking divine spiritual blessings upon the babes. The disciples began to interfere, and it seems that they were succeeding and that, when no more babes were being brought to him, Jesus looked out of the house, saw what they were doing, and promptly stopped them.

Luke 18:16

16 But Jesus called them to him, saying: Let the little children be coming to me and stop hindering them! For of such is the kingdom of God. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child in no way shall enter into it!

Mark adds that he then took them into his arms, laid his hands on them, and went on fervently blessing them. A cluster of people and their babes seem to have been halted by the disciples outside of the house. Mark states that this made Jesus indignant. Why did they do a thing such as this? The deeper reason we gather from what Jesus said, namely that they did not as yet realize the relation of babes to the kingdom. They may have had other reasons also such as that they did not want Jesus to be bothered by having all these babes brought to him, that they considered his time too valuable to be wasted on infants, and that they desired his time for themselves for further discussion. He called “them” to him, αὐτά (neuter) refers to the babes.

Jesus appears as the great Advocate of babes, he opens his mouth for the dumb, out of whose mouth he perfects praise. It has been well said that without these words of Jesus and his attitude toward infants the Christian Church would have been far different from what it is. The disciples stood before their Master with shamed faces. His tone is peremptory. We first have the decisive aorist imperative: “Let them be coming (continue to come) to me!” Added to this is the negative command which intensifies the positive: “and stop hindering them!” When an action has already begun, the negative present imperative orders it to stop, R. 851, etc. The implication in both commands is that babes are altogether ready to come to Jesus and need only that men put nothing in their way.

And this coming has the same purpose as the coming of any adult to Jesus, namely to receive the Messianic salvation. Their affinity for Jesus lies in their need of him, which is due to their inborn sin.

These were Jewish children who were already in the old covenant of grace; yet Jesus lays no stress on this but speaks of children in general even as the church has applied his word to all children. And indeed, if Jewish children, who were already in the covenant and the kingdom, needed to be brought to Jesus in order to be blessed by him as the Messiah, how much more is this the case with reference to all other children, to whom no grace has yet been applied? Jesus once for all removes every obstacle which our blind reasoning about babes may raise against their coming to him. In the case of parents “stop hindering” means “stop refusing to bring them,” for that is the worst hindering of all.

This double command would itself be enough, but Jesus goes much farther, he adds his reason (γάρ) for this command: “For of such is the kingdom of God.” He does not say τούτων, “of these,” the ones who are now being brought to him or in the wider sense all little children and babes; but τῶντοιούτων, “of such,” which means far more, namely the great class to which children as such belong. Bengel says that if the kingdom is “of such,” then the children must with a special right be included. They are the model example of the whole class. If we want to know the character of the class we must study the children. It is their receptivity to which Jesus refers. Sin has not yet developed in them to such a degree as to produce conscious resistance to the power of divine grace, which necessitates the convicting power of the law.

See 4:43 on the kingdom of God; it is where God (Christ), the King, is with his rule and his work of grace. To be of this kingdom is to have God’s grace operative in us.

If Jesus had meant that all children, merely because of their being children, are already under this operation, are already saved, it would be superfluous for children to come to him; they would already be his. But he means nothing of this kind. What is born of the flesh is flesh, John 3:6 (Gen. 5:3; Ps. 51:5). It is in vain to deny original or inborn sin, the total depravity of our race, and to call babes “innocent” in the sense of “sinless.” Every babe that dies contradicts this view.

It is another groundless assumption that all children are at birth (or already when conceived) made partakers of Christ’s atonement without any means whatever. The Scriptures contain no word to this effect. Because some were misled by such thoughts, the little ones have been left outside of the kingdom until their receptiveness for grace became jeopardized. Baptism in particular was denied them, and this sacrament itself was regarded as being a mere symbol which gives and conveys nothing but only pictures something. Baptism was made an act of obedience (so much law) which was possible only for an adult and no longer an act of the Triune God which adopts babes as his children, deeds to them a place in heaven, gives them the new birth in the Spirit. Who will count the crimes that were thus perpetrated against helpless babes even in the very name of Christ by denying them the one divine means by which they can be brought and can come to their glorified Lord?

Luke 18:17

17 Although this verse recalls Matt. 18:3, we see that it is used in a different way. With the seal of verity (amen) and of authority (I say to you), see 4:24, Jesus shows his disciples how “of such is the kingdom of God,” for no one shall enter that kingdom unless he enters it as a little child. This statement is astonishing in every way. We should think as, alas, so many did and do think that a babe must receive the kingdom as an adult receives it, but absolutely the reverse is true. The child is the model, not the man. It is the unassuming humility and the unquestioning trustfulness of the child that make it a pattern for all adults.

This humility and this trustfulness, when they are directed to Christ, become the very essence of saving faith. To receive the kingdom and to enter into it are not diverse when we remember what the kingdom is, namely the working of his power and his grace wherever he is present. This we receive, i. e., as a gift, God bestows his grace on us; and thus we enter the circle, the domain, where God works with his grace. By receiving the kingdom we enter into it, and by entering into it we receive it. In John 3:3, 5 seeing the kingdom is described as entering it. But the decisive point is the emphatic “as a little child.”

Luke 18:18

18 We are now told of one whose love of riches was keeping him out of the kingdom. And there inquired of him a ruler, saying, Good Teacher, by having done what will I inherit life eternal?

Luke calls him “a ruler” (τίς = our “a”), one of the officials who were managing the local synagogue; and Matthew supplies the detail that he was a νεανίσκος, a man between 24 and 40. Mark adds the details that Jesus was just going out on the road to proceed to another village when this man ran out, kneeled before Jesus, and inquired of him. Though he was a ruler and prominent in his community he humbles himself before Jesus. This fact and the address, “Good Teacher,” bespeak great reverence for Jesus and the assurance on his part that Jesus will surely be able to give him the vital information he desires.

This man does not ask how he may obtain eternal life as though he were at a loss regarding the ways and means. On the contrary, he thinks that he knows quite well, namely by his having done something, some one good thing (Matthew), “good” being used in the sense of heilbringend (C.-K. 5). The aorist participle ποιήσας is punctiliar to indicate one accomplishment—a difficult performance, perhaps, but the man was ready for the undertaking. He is not thinking of a merely moral act, for he has performed many acts of this kind and yet feels that he has not won eternal life.

He asks what he shall do because he thinks that Jesus has discovered this thing and has acquired life eternal for himself by it. This man would like to know the recipe, would like to do the same thing. His conception of Jesus is thus much like that of the modernists: a man who has discovered the good thing and found eternal life by it. This ruler wants to be let in on this secret: “Teacher, how didst thou do it? Tell me that I may also do it!” In the question “by doing what” there lies, of course, the assumption that the questioner has the necessary ability and may easily reach the goal Jesus has reached. All he feels that he needs is to know the thing that is to be done.

This idea is Pelagianism in its crassest form. The best feature about the man is that he wants eternal life and despite all his past doing has not been able to secure that treasure.

John uses ζωή thirty-four times in his writings and always in the sense of the life principle itself which makes us spiritually alive. No science has fathomed what natural life is, and the essence of spiritual life is naturally still more mysterious. But both natural and spiritual life are known and recognized by their functions and their acts. The reception of the “life” is regeneration, of which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus at length.

This life is αἰώνιος, “eternal,” going on through the eons unaffected by temporal death, which only transfers this life into the heavenly world. It may be lost, and it ceases in us when we wickedly and wilfully cut ourselves off from its divine source, Christ, the Life. Just what conception the ruler had of this life which he so much desired one can guess only from the way in which he imagined that it could be acquired; he supposed that, upon his having done something, it would be his.

An issue is sometimes made of κληρονομεῖν as if doing and inheriting were a contradiction in the man’s question. But Matthew interprets “inheriting” by writing “have” life eternal. The verb is often used in the sense of to obtain or to have a portion in something. It is used specifically when sonship and heirship are involved. But even so, inheriting need not exclude all idea of merit as many a last will and testament shows when a larger portion is bequeathed to a more faithful child, or when a friend, a benefactor, a person who has rendered some valuable service, is made an heir. Jesus, too, says nothing and intimates nothing about a contradiction in the question.

The picture that is thus drawn of the young ruler is really pathetic: so eager to do, so desirous of life eternal (while many young men are carried away by the world), so strongly attracted to Jesus, expecting so much of him—and yet so far from the right road to life eternal! Compare the same question as it is put by a lawyer in 10:25.

Luke 18:19

19 But Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? No one is good except one, God. The precepts thou knowest, Do not commit adultery; do not kill; do not steal; do not bear false witness; honor thy father and mother.

Rationalism and Unitarianism point to this question of Jesus as proof positive that Jesus himself says that he is not God. But they understand the words of Jesus too superficially. When the young ruler called Jesus “good” and asked what “good thing” (Matthew) he should do to gain life, everything depended on what he meant by ἀγαθός, “good.” Note that both the ruler and Jesus use only the positive “good” in an absolute sense, which is much stronger than the superlative would be (R. 661).

The question of Jesus: “Why callest thou me good?” aims to make this ruler think of what he means by the word. Jesus makes no pronouncement whatever about himself in this question but tells this ruler to pause and to consider what “good” really means. It will not do to use the word lightly with reference to Jesus. In order to show what Jesus means he points out that goodness in the real sense of that term can be predictated only of God. So far is this from denying the Godhead of Jesus that it actually asserts it for him. “Good,” Jesus intends to say, if you mean that in the common sense, it is too cheap to apply to me! It is quite another thing to use good in its real meaning as it applies only to God! The man is thus led to look at Jesus in a new way, to consider that Jesus may, indeed, be God, essentially one with God as his Son.

The English translation “good” obscures this deeper meaning too much. The matter is not improved when modernists translate ἀγαθός “kind,” which “good” means only in certain connections in English but never in the Greek and absolutely never in a pointed connection such as the present instance. Ἀγαθός means “beneficial,” good in that respect. In this sense it may signify what is morally beneficial. Did this man mean something in the way of moral benefit by asking for the good thing (Matthew) he should do? If so, then God’s own moral law had answered him long ago. But ἀγαθός means beneficial also in the sense of heilbringend (C.-K. 5, where our passage is fully discussed), benefiting by bestowing salvation. The ruler had asked for something that would bring him life eternal, salvation; hence the question was pertinent: “Did he think of this meaning when he called on the good Teacher to tell him what the good thing was that he should do?” It is to impress this meaning upon his mind that Jesus tells him that God alone is good.

Now a Jew needed no reminder that God is morally excellent, “The Good,” its very embodiment (Matthew). This Jew needed to be reminded that God alone is heilbringend, good as the very source of salvation, beyond which no other exists. Was he coming to Jesus to find out what the good, the beneficent thing in this sense was, and did he mean that Jesus could bestow this good upon him? In an exceedingly simple way the ruler is thus led to look upon Jesus in the true light, as the One who bestows salvation, i. e., as himself being God.

Luke 18:20

20 After jolting the ruler’s mind in regard to the real meaning of “good” in connection with salvation and thus with God, Jesus proceeds to answer his question. Luke and Mark abbreviate but agree with Matthew. “Thou knowest the precepts” means what Matthew says, that if he wills to enter into life he must guard these divine ἐντολαί or precepts. Jesus follows the proper course with this man (as he did with the lawyer in 10:26); he starts with the law in order to lead him to the gospel. The process is very simple: the man is first to understand that he cannot obtain the life by the law; second, that all the law can do for him is to show him his sin. After this is clear, his only hope will be in the gospel.

As to the commandments which Jesus cites, all the negative ones have μή with the strong aorist subjunctive, the regular form for negative commands in the aorist; the final positive command has τίμα, the durative present imperative “be honoring,” i. e., always. By using only the second table of the law Jesus takes this young ruler to the place where he is surest of himself, for these are the commandments regarding which most men imagine that they can obey them with little effort—but see Matt. 5:21, etc. Jesus shows that in quoting the commandments he is not bound by their wording or by their order in the Decalog. The evangelists also use freedom in quoting. Matthew has the sum of the second table at the end, Mark and Luke have the Fourth Commandment on honoring parents there. Mark alone has the Ninth and the Tenth which are combined in, “Do not defraud.” It seems to be the object of Jesus simply to pile up the commandments into a tremendous burden and to show how exceedingly much the law requires before it grants the life as a reward.

Luke 18:21

21 He, however, said, These all did I watch from my youth on.

He says this to Jesus without blinking an eye. And he is perfectly sincere in what he says. This divine law has no terrors for him—he has kept it all. This is a sample of Pharisaic training which nullifies the very effect God intends his law to produce, namely contrite knowledge of sin and the terrores conscientiae. This young ruler is altogether self-righteous in the face of the law. He was perhaps disappointed to hear Jesus recite nothing but the old commandments which he had watched from his youth. Was this all that the good Teacher could hold up to him? The words φυλάσσειν and τηρεῖν are synonyms like bewachen and bewahren, to watch over and keep safe and to guard and keep inviolate.

He had lived an exemplary life outwardly, he had shunned grave transgressions, aided and protected, no doubt, by both his training and his environment. Many would today be only too well satisfied with themselves if they were like him, and others would praise and perhaps envy him if they saw him in modern form. Picture him: an exemplary young man in early manhood, fine and clean morally as the phrase now goes, the son of wealthy parents but not spoiled by wealth, having a strong religious bent, an esteemed member of the church, in fact, one of its pillars, a ruler of the local synagogue who was more important than a member of the church council is in our present congregations. Where are the parents who would not be proud of such a son? Where the church that would not give him a prominent place? Where the maid that would not be attracted by his position and his personal excellence?

Yet all this is worthless in the eyes of Jesus. And, in fact, the man himself is not satisfied. He is sure that the trouble is not with the old commandments, for he feels he has kept these even from the first conscious days of his youth. According to Matthew he asks what he yet lacks. In Mark and in Luke this question is implied. There was, somehow, a lack which he could not explain.

What could it be? Jesus is leading him to its discovery.

Luke 18:22

22 But having heard, Jesus said to him: Yet one thing is lacking to thee! All whatever thou hast sell and give out to poor people and thou shalt have a treasure in the heaven! And come, be following me!

Jesus not only heard but looked upon and loved the young ruler (Mark), ἀγαπᾶν, perceived his deplorable condition and purposed to help him out of it. As the “one thing” the ruler still lacks we regard all that Jesus says; it is a unit and should not be split into two or more things. This one thing is not to be ranged alongside of others and added to them as making the measure full; it is totally different from all others, beside which none of them count. Jesus tells this man that he really needs the one essential and vital thing. He has thus far attained only an outward obedience to the law and has not discovered that this is utterly useless for salvation; he still thinks that all he needs to do is to add something to this outward obedience. The thing he lacks begins with this discovery, with the realization that all his work-righteousness is in vain, that what he needs is a complete inward change.

Jesus describes this change to him in detail. By telling this ruler to sell all that he has and to divide it to poor people Jesus is laying his finger on the chief sin in this man’s heart, the love of his earthly possessions. Jesus is demanding no mere outward act which would be as valueless as the other acts of this man had been. The outward act is to be merely the evidence of the inner change. This change is to be, first of all, the true sorrow of contrition. Heretofore he has clung to his earthly possessions with his heart.

What a sin against God’s law! By selling and giving away everything this inward sin is to be swept out by true contrition, μετάνοια. It is a pity that so many fail to see what Jesus really demands. It is impossible to agree that Jesus is showing a way of salvation to this man that is different from the way for other sinners.

Abandoning what was hitherto his heart’s treasure is only the negative side; the positive side is that “he shall have a treasure in the heavens” with his whole heart fixed on that. The future “thou shalt have” starts from the moment when his heart is separated from his earthly treasure. It is a serious misunderstanding of this word of Jesus to take it to mean that by selling and giving away his earthly wealth this man would receive this treasure in the heavens as a reward. This “treasure” is the unmerited grace and pardon of God. For the other side of the one thing the man yet lacked, the one that always goes together with contrition, is the true and saving faith in Christ. That is why Jesus adds the gospel call to come and follow him to the selling and the giving away. This would be the evidence of true faith on the part of the man. Δεῦρο, the adverb “hither,” is sometimes used as being almost equivalent to a verb, and it is used with or without an imperative, here with ἀκολούθει, the present imperative to indicate continuous following.

Jesus does not always ask us to give up our earthly wealth. It is in vain to point to this passage as proof for the abrogation of personal ownership of wealth. Zacchaeus was not required to give all his possessions to the poor; Joseph of Arimathaea was a disciple and was rich; Ananias was free to do with his own what he would as long as he practiced no hypocrisy nor tried to deceive the Holy Spirit; St. James warns the rich only against trusting in riches instead of trusting in God. Luther is, therefore, right when he draws attention to the domestic state and its requirements of certain possessions such as a house, home, food, clothing, etc., for wife and children.

The case of this young ruler is a special one and comes under Matt. 5:29, 30; 18:8, 9; Mark 9:43. We are also by no means certain that this man was to assume voluntary poverty in order to follow Jesus and take part in the work of the gospel. This is usually assumed, but we have no intimation as to just how Jesus intended to use this new follower. Others besides the Twelve were in his following for their own persons only and certainly did not divest themselves of all their possessions. Peter had his house in Capernaum; John, too, had a home to which to take Jesus’ mother; and the women disciples mentioned in 8:2, 3 who followed Jesus had means from which to supply Jesus and the Twelve.

Catholicism considers voluntary poverty (in its monastic orders) a work of merit toward salvation; it calls this command to give all to the poor a consilium evangelicum that goes beyond the Decalog and the observance of such counsel an opus supererogativum. In Matt. 18:21 τέλειος does not mean morally perfect but “complete,” as having reached the τέλος or goal, which here signifies attaining the “one thing,” the essential which the ruler still lacked.

The rationalistic view is that what the ruler lacked was moral power, the energy of the moral will. Others think of the ability to sacrifice all for the sake of reaching the highest moral good, or the ability really to fulfill the second table, the law of loving one’s neighbor as oneself, by which eternal life would be gained. These legalistic views are not tenable. A common sermon pattern along this line is: this man was to give up everything—what are you giving up? Life, even in the sense of heaven, is not bought with money.

Luke 18:23

23 However, on hearing these things he became very sad, for he was exceedingly rich.

The effect produced on the young man shows that Jesus had struck home, had bared the man’s most vulnerable spot, the love of his great wealth. First, such enthusiasm; now, such aggrieved going away (Matthew and Mark). The fact that he was not changed on the instant need cause no surprise. A struggle began, one that might be long and severe. He, indeed, left Jesus, but Jesus’ words did not leave him and may well have brought him back in the end. The synoptists leave the story at this point because their interest lies in the words of Jesus which go far beyond this one case.

Luke 18:24

24 But when Jesus saw him, he said: How with difficulty shall those having riches enter into the kingdom of God! For easier it is that a camel go through a needle’s opening than that a rich man go into the kingdom of God.

Jesus saw the aggrieved ruler leaving (Matthew and Mark), then looked around on his disciples (Mark), and then exclaimed because of the difficulty with which a rich man gets into the kingdom (4:43). What appears in the narrative about the ruler is thus more fully elucidated. God alone is able to save a rich man. The emphasis is on δυσκόλως; God can save him only “with difficulty,” i. e., bring him to receive the gifts and the blessings that are bestowed by God’s rule of grace in Jesus Christ; τὰχρήματα = riches. In Mark, when Jesus notes the amazement of the disciples, he repeats and substitutes “those that have trusted in riches” for “a rich man.”

Luke 18:25

25 Jesus illustrates how difficult it is by a remarkable comparison, which simply means that it is impossible for a rich man, that is, one who trusts in riches, to enter the kingdom. His false trust will most certainly keep out the true trust in God’s grace. Τρῆμα = perforation; βελόνη = a, sharp point as of a spear and thus a needle. The Talmud uses the elephant in the same illustration of human impossibility; elephants were not known in Palestine. The Koran has the illustration of Jesus.

Not until the fifth century was κάμηλος, “camel,” changed into κάμιλος, the heavy “rope” or cable that is attached to the anchor of a ship (R. 192). This view offered no gain, for no cable can be threaded through a needle’s eye. In the fifteenth century the opposite was suggested, the needle’s eye was enlarged by being made to mean a small portal that was used by pedestrians when they were entering a walled city, through which a camel might squeeze after its load was removed. This turned the impossible into the possible and became attractive by suggesting that, as the camel had to leave its load and crawl on its knees, so the rich man had to shed his riches, i. e., his love for them, and humble himself on his knees and crawl into the kingdom. But as in Matt. 23:24 Jesus had in mind an actual gnat and an actual camel, so camel and needle’s eye are actual here. The impossibility that is thus illustrated is without a single exception. Abraham, David, Zacchaeus, Joseph of Arimathaea are not exceptions, for Jesus himself now explains how the impossible becomes possible.

Luke 18:26

26 Now they that heard said, And who is able to be saved! But he said, The things impossible with men are possible with God.

Luke does not state how shocked the disciples were on hearing what Jesus said. καί at the head of a reply connects with the preceding speaker’s word and continues the thought but adds what the one replying should add or what must be added. So the disciples here add to what they have just heard: “And who is able to be saved!” in the sense that Jesus may as well say right out that nobody can be saved—and, surely, that cannot be true.

The disciples do not speak only of the young ruler, they go even beyond all rich men. Their τίς is unrestricted. They think of themselves (v. 28, “we”) and include all men generally. Have not all men a secret desire for riches of some kind? The question is really an implied confession of sin on the part of the disciples. This is excellent. It is well that they do not shield themselves behind what Jesus once said about the poor (6:20).

But another thing is not so excellent, namely the implication that they believed that a man can and should do something toward being saved. They really say: “If the illustration of the camel is true regarding a rich man’s entering the kingdom, then the rich man can do nothing toward being saved, nor can we or anybody else, who are, like the rich, afflicted with some desire for things earthly.” In σώζειν there lies the idea of rescue from mortal danger and of a condition of safety that is produced by the rescue. The passive σωθῆναι leaves God as the agent, but δύναται betrays the synergistic idea that is in the disciples’ minds.

Luke 18:27

27 Jesus, too, speaks with feeling (Mark and Matthew). He has elicited from the disciples the very thought he wished to correct once for all. The illustration of the camel is only too true: “The things impossible with men”—they are and ever remain so. The last door of hope on that side is shut and sealed forever. Here perish all Pelagianism, moralism, synergism; man can do absolutely nothing toward being saved by any natural powers of his own. The Concordia Triglotta 785, etc., and 881, etc., is most certainly right.

But the more all hope in ourselves dies, whether we are rich or poor, the more our hope in God rises like the morning sun with healing in his wings: “possible with God.” And why not? “For with God all things are possible,” Mark 10:27. Greater assurances no man can ask. God can save even the rich, difficult though it be to eradicate trust in riches and to put trust only in God’s grace in its place.

Who will measure the ability of this grace? Who will describe the miracles it is able to work? We might be inclined to think of God’s omnipotence as it is revealed in the physical creation and then apply our abstract mode of reasoning and say that it is by almighty power that God saves the rich and us. But Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God, which is not physical, of this world, and of the great work of saving men, including the rich, which is a spiritual work entirely and not at all a work of omnipotence. We are not in the First Article of the Creed but in the Second and the Third. “Christ is able to save them to the uttermost,” Heb. 7:25.

Luke 18:28

28 The disciples go from one extreme to the other. They first fear that, on the basis of what Jesus said, none of them can be saved; now after their fears in that direction have been allayed, they want assurances that they will be rewarded for the sacrifices they have made. Now Peter said, Lo, we on our part, having left our own things, did follow thee!

It occurs to Peter that he and the Twelve had done exactly what Jesus required of the rich young ruler, and so he thinks he ought to remind Jesus of this fact. Peter thinks that their act was no small thing, hence he begins with the exclamation “lo.” The emphasis is on ἡμεῖς, “we on our part,” which contrasts the Twelve with the ruler who went away aggrieved. Peter does not forget to bring out to the credit of himself and the Twelve the fact that they followed Jesus even as Jesus had bidden the ruler to do. The τὰἴδια are all their own affairs and interests, not just their homes (R. V. margin). They had identified themselves wholly with Jesus.

Both the participle and the main verb are aorists which state only the facts; note the tenses in Matthew and in Mark. Mark and Luke omit the question: “What then shall be ours?” (Matthew) as being already voiced in the tone that Peter used.

But this word of Peter’s has a suspicious ring with its emphasis on what “we on our part” did. It does not intend to add: “and we have found more than satisfaction in thee”; for that strong “we” would not harmonize with such an addition. To express such an acknowledgment Peter should have said: “Thou thyself hast drawn us to forsake our own and to follow thee.” What Peter’s ear had caught was the promise to the ruler: “And thou shalt have a treasure in the heavens.” But he had not caught Jesus’ meaning that this would be a treasure of pure grace and not a merited reward that was earned by the ruler by giving away his wealth and then following Jesus. Peter takes the word to refer to a profitable trade to which the ruler was invited. The old spirit of work-righteousness, of human claims and merit, crops out again in Peter. The more we do, the more we earn, and the more God owes us.

Luke 18:29

29 Jesus, however, said to them: Amen, I say to you, that there is no one who left house, or wife, or brother, or parents, or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not duly receive back many times more in this time and in the eon that is coming life eternal.

Compare the fuller answer in Matt. 19:28–30 which is followed by the parable in 20:1–16. The generosity and the magnanimity of Jesus are so great that he could and would accept nothing from us without returning it beyond all computation (Matt. 25:21, 23; Luke 19:17, 19). The vast disproportion of what we give up and the returns already display his boundless grace, to say nothing of the gift of salvation which is made before we even begin our sacrifices. Not one shall miss his due reward.

On “amen,” etc., see 4:24. Since it is sealed thus, this promise cannot fail. R. 427 thinks that the repetitions with ἤ lend solemnity, B.-D. 460, 3, the impression of greatness and fulness. “And” cannot be used as a translation because each item has its own value, and because “and” would mean that each disciple would have to leave all the items listed before the promise applied to him. We cannot, however, make any exception of any item in the whole list. On “to leave” see 14:26 and Matt. 10:37. This leaving may include the outward act of giving up and separating from the persons and the property involved, but the inward separation is often enough. Luke has the comprehensive phrase “for the sake of the kingdom of God”; Matthew, “for the sake of my name” (revelation); Mark, “for the sake of me and for the sake of the gospel.” The sense is the same, which illustrates the work of divine inspiration, which does not necessarily imply the sameness of the verbal expressions but the exactness of all verbal expressions to convey just what the Spirit wants conveyed.

Luke 18:30

30 Matthew and Mark write “a hundred fold” and raise the replacement proportionately to the highest degree as is done in Matt. 13:8. Luke’s neuter plural “many times more” sounds just as hyperbolical, which leads some to place the entire reward into the other world. But this is barred out by “in this season (time)” which is contrasted with “in the eon, the coming one.” The reward is certain already in our earthly lives. Καιρός is a portion of time that is fit and proper for something distinctive, “a season” for it. It is rather striking for Jesus to speak of earthly time as being only “this season.” The contrast with αἰών is great, for an “eon” is a vast era that is marked by what fills it. “The eon coming,” i. e., now approaching closer and closer, is the heavenly eon that begins at the end of the world after the kairos has run its brief course. The two do not overlap. The glory of heaven that is to be ours is received fully only at the end when the body will be raised and will be reunited with the soul.

Scoffers have made sport of this promise by singling out “wife”—a hundred here on earth already and then again in heaven. This wooden way of reading Scripture must always call for pity. They would, of course, pick on wife, but why not on mothers, children, or other items in the list? Jesus has in mind the new relationships and what they involve, all these become ours already in this life, 8:19, etc.; Rom. 16:13 (John 19:27); 1 Tim. 1:2; 5:2; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philemon 10; 1 Pet. 5:3, and other passages; other possessions Ps. 37:16; Prov. 15:16; 16:8; 1 Tim. 6:6. The new riches are the divine blessings which substitute in us thankfulness for worldly anxiety and delight in imperishable treasures.

It should be noted that life eternal (referring to v. 18) is separated from the preceding and placed at the end by itself, which shows that it is not intended as a reward for forsaking relations, property, etc. In fact, before we are able to do this forsaking and any good work, the instant faith is kindled in the heart, life eternal is already made ours, and that altogether out of pure grace for Christ’s sake alone. The analogy of all Scripture is solid on this vital subject. Although both Mark and Luke refer to taking life eternal in the eon to come, at the end of the world, this changes nothing in regard to the way in which it first becomes ours. The entrance into the heavenly life is mentioned in order to impress upon the disciples what an infinite blessing awaits those who are called upon to forsake this or that temporality. What is any loss when we look at our heavenly gain?

The Fourth Part

When Jesus Actually Entered Jerusalem

Chapter 18:31 to 21:38

The fact that Luke intends to indicate a division in his Gospel at this point is generally recognized in spite of the chapter division, which should be made here and not at v. 43. The actual Passion history begins with chapter 22.

Luke 18:31

31 Now having taken the Twelve aside, he said to them: Lo, we are going up to Jerusalem, and there shall be accomplished all the things that have been written through the prophets for the Son of man. For he shall be given over to the Gentiles and shall be mocked and shall be outraged and shall be spit upon, and, having scourged him, they will kill him. And on the third day he shall rise again.

The long, leisurely journey down through Perea east of the Jordan is finished. Jericho is at hand and the comparatively short stretch of road to Jerusalem. So Mark 10:32 states that Jesus and the disciples were now on the way to Jerusalem, he was leading them forward. It was thus that at some spot along the road he took the Twelve aside (παρά in the verb), away from even the other disciples who followed, and made the announcement and told them once more about all that should take place at the end of the journey. He had made this announcement before, in 9:22, 40; in Matt. 16:21; 17:22, 23. But all is now fully detailed and complete. Jesus sees it all and not merely through the eyes of the prophets but in direct vision so that the one commentary on his own prophetic announcement is the history of these events as soon as they occurred.

“Lo!” he exclaims, for all this is astonishing, indeed. “We are going up to Jerusalem,” are now directly on our way with Jerusalem as our next objective. “We” in the verb means the Twelve and Jesus, for they are to be the direct witnesses of all that shall take place. Jesus himself wants them there. He must die at Jerusalem. There the prophets had died, 13:33, and there the greatest of them all must needs die. This was the heart of the nation, the seat of its authority, and no less a power would reject and kill him. Jesus would be put to death, not by some mob in a frenzy, on the spur of the moment, but by the great representatives of the nation in their very capital after going through deliberate legal forms.

“There shall be accomplished,” finished and brought to an end (τέλος in the verb), all that had been written. It is the same verb that Jesus used on the cross when he cried, “It has been finished!” John 19:30 (also 28), τελέω. The perfect participle, “all that has been written,” etc., means that all still stands thus recorded. Those who, like R., W. P. think that the dative τῷυἱῷτοῦἀνθρώπου might be construed with the main verb, overlook the fact that “all the things that have been written” needs a limitation. Not absolutely all were completed at Jerusalem but only those that had been written “for the Son of man,” regarding him and the completion he should accomplish. So we construe this dative of personal interest with the participle and follow the natural order of the words.

Here we again have that significant διά with reference to the holy writers which is so constantly used in the New Testament. Trace it from Matt. 1:22 onward and note it in Luke 1:70. Robertson’s translation “by the prophets” may be misleading. This “by” (ὑπό) belongs only to God (Matt. 1:22) and is never used with reference to the prophets. “By God through the prophets” is the Bible definition of inspiration. Διά introduces the medium; the prophets were God’s media or instruments. God was the speaker and author; the prophets were his media for transmission. That is the whole of inspiration, of verbal inspiration, than which there is no other. “Son of man” (see 5:24), he who is man and more than man, is the proper title here.

Luke 18:32

32 We should compare 9:22 and 44, and then we shall see that all is new and thus an addition in this announcement save the killing and the rising on the third day. Even his being given over or delivered “into the hands of men” (9:44) is no longer indefinite but now specified (not referring to the act of Judas): “to the Gentiles,” who can be only Pilate and his men, and the ones who will hand him over can be only the Sanhedrin which is mentioned by its full title in 9:22. The prophets did not reveal the fact that the Gentiles would execute Jesus. This act, which was so horrible to the mind of any godly Jew, the deliverance of their Messiah into the hands of the Gentiles, is followed by three prophetic future passives which foretell what these Gentiles would do with Jesus. The sufferings at the hands of the Sanhedrin are recorded in 9:22; Jesus now adds: “he shall be mocked, he shall be outraged (insulted is too weak after mocked), he shall be spit upon”—by these Gentiles.

Luke 18:33

33 And then the final acts: “and having scourged, they will kill him,” the Gentiles doing this in their way by crucifying him as Matt. 20:19 reports this announcement. Only here and in Matt. 26:2 did Jesus use the word “crucify,” it is not found in the prophets. This is the climax, not only the horrible but the most abominable death which was inflicted on slaves and the worst type of criminals by pagans. Jesus calmly detailed it all—into this he was going, this was to be finished, this the disciples were to witness.

Then, with the same calmness, he again (9:22) declares: “and on the third day he shall rise again,” ἀναστήσεται, the future middle which is used in the active sense. Note the wording: four passives regarding things that are done to Jesus; then one plural active, “they shall kill” (not another passive, “he shall be killed”), which points to the murderers; then one singular middle-active, which points to the resurrection of Jesus as being effected by himself. We first go down, down to the most terrible death, then at one tremendous stroke into the resurrection of glory. Compare the further remarks on this clause as found in 9:22.

Luke 18:34

34 And they grasped not one of these things, and this utterance had been hidden from them, and they were not realizing the things being said.

Compare 9:45 on the same inability to understand. We have little to add to the comment we have offered on that passage. Three verbs are again piled up to tell us of this ignorance of the disciples. The first is an aorist to express the fact: “they did not grasp,” and the object is added, “not one of these things,” not even a single item in the list. We then have either a periphrastic pluperfect: the utterance (ῥῆμα, the thing uttered) had been and thus continued to be hidden from them by something in their minds, namely their wrong preconceptions of the Messiah; or ἦν as an imperfect with a predicative perfect participle as a complement: the thing “was” to them “as something that has been and thus is still hidden” from them. Finally we have an imperfect: “and they were not realizing” all the things being said to them (present participle).

Yet this announcement, like those that precede, was by no means useless. Jesus was thinking of the future when all would have occurred just as he was now telling it in advance; compare 24:44–48. So to this day many a word of Scripture does not mean much to the reader until alter in life when its meaning comes out with force to instruct and to comfort him. The Twelve probably tried to find strange figures in these terrible verbs and simply could and would not understand them in their literal sense.

Luke 18:35

35 And it came to pass while he was drawing near to Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the side of the road begging. Now, when he heard a crowd passing through, he began inquiring what this was. And they reported to him that Jesus the Nazarene was passing by. And he shouted, saying, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me! And those leading began rebuking him, that he be silent. He, however, kept yelling much more, Son of David, have mercy on me!

See 1:8 for ἐγένετο plus a finite verb and for ἐντῷ with the infinitive. Jesus had crossed the Jordan and was following the usual route through Jericho, near the river, up to Jerusalem.

At first glance there seems to be a decided discrepancy between Luke and both Matthew and Mark. Luke has the miracle performed as Jesus draws near the city, Matthew and Mark as he leaves the city. Strange solutions are offered, even to postulating as many as three different healings. Yet the matter is simple, and all shadow of contradiction fades away when we have all the facts. Jesus passed through Jericho (19:1), and yet, although it was late in the day, no one in the whole town invited him to be his guest. On the other side of the town, out along the highway, Zacchaeus was waiting to see Jesus pass by.

Jesus calls him down from the tree, invites himself to this publican’s house, retraces his steps into Jericho, and spends the night with Zacchaeus. It was on this return to the city that the blind men were healed. Luke separates the events because he wants to tell the story of Zacchaeus in one piece, without inserting into it the story of the blind men. So Matt. 21:18–22 tells the story of the blasted fig tree in one piece, whereas Mark 11:12–14; 20–23 relate the two events separately.

Mark preserved the beggar’s name, Bartimæus, and Matthew, who himself saw the miracle, informs us that the blind beggar had a blind companion. There is no contradiction between the evangelists as to the number of the blind men. It is easy to see how Bartimæus got even his name into one record. He was evidently the leader, kept up his frantic clamor against all opposition, and thus obtained the healing. The beggars are shown as sitting alongside the road. They had trailed the crowd out from Jericho with their guide but stopped at the edge of the city. Then, when the crowd surged back to the city, their golden opportunity came.

Luke 18:36

36 Being blind, this beggar, of whom alone Luke speaks, depended on his hearing, which told him that the crowd was already returning. He could not understand that, and so he went on to inquire, “what this was,” the optative εἴη for ἐστί, R. 1044.

Luke 18:37

37 “They reported to him” means some of those in the returning crowd. They call the Lord by his ordinary personal name “Jesus,” to which they add “the Nazarene” to distinguish him from others of the same name. “The Nazarene” is not derogatory although it is also not a term of honor. So this was the reason for the commotion on the road—for some reason Jesus was retracing his steps to re-enter the city. The present tense “is passing by” is not changed to the optative as is done in v. 36. It is a matter of the writer’s choice.

Luke 18:38

38 The beggar never stopped to inquire why Jesus was coming back, or where he was at the moment; it was enough for him that Jesus was passing by somewhere in the crowd that was extending along the road. He at once shouted, not, “Jesus the Nazarene,” but “Jesus, David’s Son, mercy me!” the verb being transitive in the Greek.

We now see why all three synoptists record this miracle at this point in their story of Jesus. It is not for the sake of the miracle, for Jesus had healed many blind persons, but because of this address, “Son of David,” the standard title for the Messiah among the Jews. Note that each evangelist reports the title twice and thus makes it prominent in the record. Now that Jesus is going to his death at Jerusalem he accepts the Messianic title openly before the multitude, accepts it with all its implication of royalty (1:32, 33). He had hitherto avoided it as much as possible because of the wrong political and worldly ideas the Jews connected with the Messiah-King they were expecting. Only in Samaria, to a lone woman, Jesus declared himself to be the Messiah.

In Matt. 9:27, where the blind men address him as the Son of David, they are told to tell no man about their healing; and in Matt. 15:22, etc., Jesus is far away from the crowds, where no danger attended the use of the title. But now the time has come for all Judaism to know that Jesus is David’s royal Son and Heir, the true Messiah, who is about to die as such. Politics and nationalism present no dangers now. The aorist imperative expresses great fervor in prayers; but here the petition is also for one great act of mercy from Jesus; hence ἐλέησόνμε, “mercy me,” extend an act of mercy to me. What the act is to be need not be stated.

Luke 18:39

39 We know only the fact that those in the van of the crowd tried to silence the beggar and not the reason for this attempt. Different reasons are advanced, but none commends itself; it is useless to discuss them. As it was in v. 41, ἵνα is elliptical and imperative, R. 994. The attempt to silence the beggar causes him only to keep yelling the more, Luke now uses ἔκραζεν, “he continued yelling.” His one chance of healing shall not slip by. All three synoptists repeat the cry with the significant “David’s Son.”

Luke 18:40

40 Now, having halted, Jesus ordered him to be brought to him; and he drawing near, he inquired of him, What dost thou want that I shall do? And he said, Lord, that I receive sight! And Jesus said to him, Receive sight! Thy faith has saved thee. And immediately he received sight, and he began following him, glorifying God. And all the people, on seeing it, gave praise to God.

Read Mark 10:49, 50 for what Luke tells far less vividly. It is the beggar’s frantic cry that causes Jesus to halt. He cannot pass by with that cry ringing even faintly in his ears. Willing hands, that now cheer the beggar whereas they had tried to hush him before, bring him to Jesus.

Luke 18:41

41 In the question of Jesus θέλεις is followed directly by the deliberative subjunctive without ἵνα but has quite the same sense, R. 924. In the beggar’s answer Luke writes Κύριε instead of Mark’s Rabboni. The latter means more than rabbi and in Latin codices is translated magister et domine, two using domine alone. Zahn has “Rabbun” = ’Adon and states that it was used extensively in Jewish literature for God in connections like “Lord of the world” or “of the worlds.” So the beggar’s address in his petition harmonizes well with the Messianic “David’s Son.” On the imperatival use of ἵνα see R. 933 and 994; we may translate “let me receive sight” or “see again.” The aorist is proper, for receiving sight is instantaneous. Jesus elicits this answer so that the man who cannot see may know what Jesus is doing.

Luke 18:42

42 The synoptists exercise great independence in relating parts of this story. Matthew tells us that Jesus was moved with compassion and placed his hands on the man’s eyes. Mark writes only that Jesus told him to be going, and that his faith has saved him. Luke, too, is brief but reports the word ἀνάβλεψον, “receive sight” or “see again.” The word regarding the man’s faith is identical with the one that is addressed to the healed Samaritan leper in 17:19 and is discussed there.

Luke 18:43

43 All the evangelists state that the man’s sight was restored at once, likewise that he went on to follow Jesus, Luke using the ingressive imperfect. Mark adds “on the road,” i.e., joining the disciples who constantly kept near Jesus. Luke tells how he was glorifying God for what he had done for him through Jesus, and how all the people gave praise to God. Both were certainly right. All the deeds of Jesus were to glorify and praise the Father, for they were, indeed, the deeds for which the Father had sent him into the world as the Son of David.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.